Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/86 (term)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asgrrr (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 20 October 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

86 (term)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

86 (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NOTDICT. It consists of a definition, etymology, and a couple examples of attested uses, and it's difficult to see how it could expand beyond that. Notability for a word itself is a very high bar, else we could include articles like this for practically any word (especially recent-ish slangy terms with etymology being discussed). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering this has become part of the current political news cycle, the term has gained a lot of relevance. That is why it became relevant at this point in time, after all... I came to this article to see what the fuss was about after hearing about it on the news. Deleting it at this point seems rash, because it could have an influence on things, and thus allow for an opportunity for the article to expand. I think waiting to see how events play out would be the best course of action. -Matirion (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that I have absolutely no idea what any of the fuss is about. I got here while patrolling the edit request queue, saw an article that fails NOTDICT (as I detail in my nomination statement), and nominated it for that reason alone. A word needs wide cultural significance to be notable. See Ain't for one good example where it is. Even if there's some hubbub over someone's use of the word, it doesn't make the word itself notable. It might be worth talking about in the article of the person who said it, or even possibly not at all (see WP:NOTNEWS). Another example is Controversies about the word niggardly. The word niggardly is itself not notable, even though there have been quite a few high-profile dust-ups about it. And here, it's the totality of incidents that warrants an article. Any one by itself almost surely wouldn't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While 86 was granted some scrutiny from recent events, I believe we should evaluate this article in the bigger picture. In other words, will this be relevant tomorrow? A few weeks down the line? A month later? I don't think it'll maintain the views to sustain itself just from that angle. Therefore, we should focus the argument on long-term notability. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not  86 this article. As Matirion indicates, the term exploded today onto the political landscape of the 2020 United States presidential election, meaning many users will turn to Wikipedia for a better understanding of its usage and wider context. It would send a very bad signal to delete an article just because the Trump campaign hijacked this colorful piece of Americana by circulating a screenshot of our definition that included "killing someone." NedFausa (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response above. But in short, none of that is relevant. The word itself isn't notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to relevant Wiktionary articles wikt:86 and wikt:eighty-six. To be honest, I cannot find a decent policy-based argument around the appeal to how Wikipedia is not a dictionary, whereas Wiktionary is a dictionary. I’ve been looking at sources for 86’ing, and all of them are about etymology, which fits uncomfortably close to what the policy is describing. On the other hand, I don’t recommend deleting it because 86 is a well-known acronym that people will want to look for, even outside of the Twitter controversy. Wiktionary is a wiki that provides articles about words qua words, and most discussion about this word is etymological. Reference to definitions of words can be added to these articles. If a definition is not yet found there, one should find it used in a speech or similar published source (tweets would not count, but there are better sources out there anyway) and put it in. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete this. It is a current political event, in that the Michigan Governor has nick nack on her desk that says “86 45” , meaning get rid of Trump’s presidency, while a Trumpers are now claiming that is a death threat. The meaning of the term is being debated, and this site helps explain its history from the 1930’s about it being a restaurant term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:51C1:6828:BCCC:5560:E5D1:191A (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yep, delete it. wikipedia is not a dictionary, and yet almost the entire entry is the equivalent of a wiktionary entry - Cdjknu (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the term receives more coverage especially from reliable sources in the next few days or Soft redirect to Wiktionary. If this article is kept, then there should be a section covering the Whitmer-Trump Campaign controversy. Personally I am inclined towards keeping the article as long as it briefly explains the "WhItMeR WaNtS TrUmP DeAd" fiasco going on and doesn't give too much importance to the Trumpers' definition of "86". 45.251.33.218 (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if there's something to say about the controversy, it's at a different article (theirs, or even a new one), but not here. One kerfuffle over a word, no matter how huge, doesn't suddenly make the word itself notable, even if the kerfuffle is. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not satisfying WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Almost all of the cited sources relate to etymology, and the remainder verify usage. No objection to soft redirect to Wiktionary:eighty-six. I would, however, compare 23 skidoo (phrase). Like 86, there is enduring mystery about the origins of 23 and 23 skidoo. Unlike 86, though, 23 skiddoo has added notability as apparently the first slang fad of the twentieth century. Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know we aren't voting, but I think this should be deleted. I think Wikipedia acting as a dictionary both dilutes it's functional utility and duplicates other more "definitive" sources. OC-Highlander — Preceding unsigned comment added by OC-Highlander (talk • contribs) 07:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original creator here. I have no problem with deletion here under DICTDEF, though as has been pointed out the inadvertent timing here means that recreations will need to be monitored for a while. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the article and believe it should be retained. It provides good references and sources and goes well beyond what is found in a dictionary. The phrase is used in many contexts and it helps bring people to Wikipedia. I believe its removal would reduce the usefulness of the site as a whole. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not appropriate as there are several sensible alternatives to deletion such as merger to another page such as
  1. 86 (number)
  2. Glossary of American terms not widely used in the United Kingdom
  3. List of restaurant terminology
which all already mention the topic. But it would be better to keep the page as it clearly passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT as there is extensive interest, study and commentary on the uncertain history of this usage. For a good example, see The Atlantic – A Restaurant ‘Eighty-Sixed’ Sarah Huckabee Sanders. What Does That Mean?. That good source was not cited in the article until I did some clean-up just now and so there's clearly scope for improvement. As WP:ATD says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One can find magazine articles about interesting words all over the place; that doesn't mean the word itself can sustain a Wikipedia article. See my example above about how we don't (and shouldn't) have an entry for niggardly, even though we do have an article about several noteworthy kerfuffles over its usage. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
niggardly is a blue link so we do have an entry for it. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it's a blue link because it's a redirect to an article that's not about the word on its own. The word on its own is most definitely not notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The word on its own" – what does that mean? Things only have significance as a result of their interaction. If something only exists in splendid isolation then it is therefore not notable. See If a tree falls in a forest... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh No. Deacon Vorbis is deleting whole sections to favor his deletion nomination. I have seen this movie before and it always ends in frustration. Edit warring is not in the cards for me today, but if anyone is interested here are the two sections he 86'd. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't helpful. If you're not going to be helpful, stop participating. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is emphatically not about doing whatever any particular mob wants it to do, especially not for such an awful wad of non-reasons as just provided. You'd think from the way people respond here that this were a petition to delete the term from the English language, not to fold one short article into another. I wish I'd just deleted the excessive stuff in the first place, thus short-circuiting this mess. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your comments. I have given guideline based reasons for keeping the term. I only pontificated on the page views. I then improved the article with RS. And the nominator began deleting sections of the article to favor the nomination which states that this is nothing more than a dictionary definition. I will now continue adding RS to the article. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Upon request of the nominator, I will give my opinion. There are sociopolitical and cultural aspects to this term, as such this is not simply a DICTDEF (even if there was an effort to 86 these sections from the article by the nominator). --Cold Season (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 86 (number) or Delete - I don't believe that this needs a stand-alone article given how almost every number article handles the slang for it. For an example, the slang for 88 is listed on 88 (number) in either the 'Cultural significance' section or the 'Other fields' section. The slang for 69 is listed on [[69 (number)#In other fields|69 (number) in the 'Other fields' section. The disambiguation page for 61 mentions that it can be used as slang for the character Ы. The 250 (number) article lists the slang for 250 in Chinese in the lede. The 64 (number) article lists that 64 used to be slang for the Commodore 64 prior to the launch of the Nintendo 64. The 25 (number) article has a section for 'Slang names' though with only one entry. Similarly, 500 (number) has a 'Slang names' section. For a final example, though not the last example, 50 (number) covers that it is used as slang for a Police Office in the 'In other fields' section.
This extends out a bit to other numbers with the 13 (number) article having a section titled "Lucky and unlucky" with links to the article Triskaidekaphobia (a phobia) and a Disambiguation page called Lucky Thirteen. The article 4 has a number of section detailing its use in politics, in religion, and other areas with the 'In other fields' section detailing that Four sounds like the word Death in a few cultures. The article 0 talks a bit about slang words for 0 with the article Names for the number 0 in English having a section for slang. Again, there are more examples of this.
The only article I found that had the slang for the number as an independent article was 187 (slang), which devotes most of its space to the California Penal Code. Only the lede there refers to the slang at all in a few brief sentences, causing it to appear to fail WP:NOTDICT. Given that there does seem to be more credibility to 86 being a slang term, I feel that it could be merge to 86 (number) without problems and would be the best solution, but it does fail as a stand-alone article as all the article is about is how the word is used as slang so a delete is recommended over a keep. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Merge to 86 (number) or Delete. Put the content under Cultural significance of 86 (number). Kolma8 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In the news due to Donald Trump and Gretchen Whitmer, the reliable sources pointing towards notability be a-flying. Try THIS for size... ("What Does ‘86 45’ Mean? Trump Campaign Claims Whitmer Is ‘Encouraging Assassination Attempts’') Meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
THIS piece by Snopes from March 2009 is also compelling. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/86_(term)&oldid=984520728"